CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 148Bariatric Surgery and OutcomesMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsEating Disorders and Behaviors

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Acceptance and commitment therapy for bariatric surgery patients, a pilot RCT

Weineland, Sandra, Arvidsson, Dag, Kakoulidis, Thanos P., Dahl, Joanne·2012·Obesity Research & Clinical Practice
DOI 10.1016/j.orcp.2011.04.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary Bariatric surgery (BS) is rated as the best evidence based treatment for obesity with regard to weight loss and maintenance of weight loss evaluated to date. Although BS interventions are effective, 20-30% of BS patients start to regain weight within 24 months. Emotional eating is a behavior pattern which has been found to predict poor outcome. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for patients who underwent BS, with regard to emotional eating, body dissatisfaction and quality of life. This study is a randomized controlled trial (n = 39) with two conditions (1) ACT including two face-to-face sessions and support via an Internet application and (2) treatment as usual (TAU) comprising the standard follow-up used by the BS team. Results show that participants in the ACT condition significantly improve on eating disordered behaviors, body dissatisfaction, quality of life and acceptance for weight related thoughts and feelings, as compared to those in the TAU group. This study shows that it is possible to improve effects of BS by specifically targeting emotional eating behavior.:

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.orcp.2011.04.004

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. House of Commons Health Committee. Obesity. Third report of session 2003–2004, vol. 1. London: The Stationery Office Limited.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 148

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Weineland, S., Arvidsson, D., Kakoulidis, T. P., & Dahl, J.
Affiliations
Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Weineland, Sandra
ORCID
Venue
Obesity Research & Clinical Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
e21-e30
ISSN
1871-403X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.orcp.2011.04.004
OpenAlex
W2092181171
Cited by
148
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Obesity Research & Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
Keywords
acceptance and commitment therapy, bariatric surgery, obesity, emotional eating, body dissatisfaction, quality of life, weight regain, online psychological intervention, disordered eating

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review